The law that separates children from smugglers was on the books since 2002. The law states how unaccompanied minors and minors being smuggled by smugglers should be detained and moved into foster parenting or kept in certified centers… https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=614
Since the Obama executive branch stopped enforcing the law, child smuggling and illegal border crossings increased to emergency levels..
“The Obama administration last year initially blamed bad economies and growing gang violence in Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala for sparking the surge, but later acknowledged that human traffickers were marketing the journey by pointing out a loophole in U.S. immigration system that requires non-Mexican children to be released into the U.S. while they await final immigration decisions. That gives them a chance to abscond and disappear into the shadows with the more than 11 million other illegal immigrants in the country.” https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/6/illegal-immigrant-children-surge-across-border-at-/
But there has been a rise in people falsely claiming to be relatives of smuggled children…
“…a growing number of cases, illegal immigrants who aren’t even related to the children are showing up and fraudulently claiming to be families.Homeland Security recorded 191 cases of children having to be separated because of fraudulent family claims during the first five months of fiscal year 2018. That already eclipses the 46 cases reported for all of 2017.” https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/may/22/children-abducted-illegals-posing-families-us-bord/
Should people crossing the border illegally not be prosecuted?
Should children being smuggled across the border illegally be put in jail with the adults that smuggled them?
An undercover FBI informant embedded in the Russian nuclear industry who was made to sign an “illegal NDA” by former Attorney General Loretta Lynch has finally given his testimony to three Congressional committees.
William D. Campbell became an FBI counterintelligence asset after spending several years as a CIA operative who developed working relationships in the nuclear industry in Kazakhstan and Russia.
“For several years my relationship with the CIA consisted of being debriefed after foreign travel,” Campbell noted in his testimony, which was obtained by this reporter. “Gradually, the relationship evolved into the CIA tasking me to travel to specific countries to obtain specific information. In the 1990’s I developed a working relationship with Kazakhstan and Russia in their nuclear energy industries. When I told the CIA of this development, I was turned over to FBI counterintelligence agents.” –saracarter.com
The FBI embedded Campbell in the Russian nuclear industry for six years, where he gathered extensive evidence of two separate but related “pay for play” schemes related to the United States uranium industry:
First, Campbell discovered that Moscow had compromised an American uranium trucking firm, Transport Logistics International (TLI) in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act – which bribed a Russian nuclear official in exchange for a contract transport Russian-mined U.S. uranium, including “yellowcake” uranium secured in the Uranium One deal.
Second, Campbell says that Russian nuclear officials told him of a scheme to route millions of dollars to the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) through lobbying firm ARPCO, which was expected to funnel a portion of its annual $3 million lobbying fee to the charity.
“The contract called for four payments of $750,000 over twelve months. APCO was expected to give assistance free of charge to the Clinton Global Initiative as part of their effort to create a favorable environment to ensure the Obama administration made affirmative decisions on everything from Uranium One to the U.S.-Russia Civilian Nuclear Cooperation agreement.“ –William Campbell
Campbell told Congressional investigators that the Uranium One deal along with billions in other uranium contracts inside the United States during the Obama administration was part of a “Russian uranium dominance strategy” involving Tenex and its American arm Tenem – both subsidiaries of state-owned Russian energy company Rosatom.
“The emails and documents I intercepted during 2010 made clear that Rosatom’s purchase of Uranium One – for both its Kazakh and American assets – was part of Russia’s geopolitical strategy to gain leverage in global energy markets,” he testified. “I obtained documentary proof that Tenex was helping Rosatom win CFIUS approval, including an October 6, 2010 email … asking me specifically to help overcome opposition to the Uranium One deal.”
“Rosatom/Tenex threw a party to celebrate, which was widely attended by American nuclear industry officials. At the request of the FBI, I attended and recorded video footage of Tenam’s new offices,” he added.
Officials with APCO – the lobbying firm accused of funneling the money to the Clinton Global Initiative, told The Hill that its support for CGI and its work for Russia were not connected in any way, and involved different divisions of the firm.
While undercover, the Russians forced Campbell to deliver bribes from Maryland transportation company TLI in $50,000 increments to Russian nuclear official Vadim Mikerin of Tenex. Campbell did so under the direction of the FBI in order to maintain his cover, fronting hundreds of thousands of dollars he says he was never reimbursed for.
As a result of Campbell’s work, TLI co-president Mark Lambert was charged in an 11-count indictment in connection with the scheme, while Vadim Mikerin, who resides in Maryland, was prosecuted in 2015 and is halfway through a four-year sentence.
Beginning at least as early as 2009 and continuing until October 2014, Lambert conspired with others at “Transportation Corporation A” to make corrupt and fraudulent bribery and kickback payments to offshore bank accounts associated with shell companies, at the direction of, and for the benefit of, a Russian official, Vadim Mikerin, in order to secure improper business advantages and obtain and retain business with TENEX. –DOJ
Of note, Rod Rosenstein failed to interview Campbell before prosecuting Vadim Mikerin when Rosenstein was Maryland’s chief federal prosectuor, instead relying on the evidence Campbell had gathered. This backfired after prosecutors insisted on sitting down with Campbell to glean more information – forcing prosecutors to recast their entire case against Mikerin.
Campbell got one debriefing after the criminal charges were filed, but was never brought before the grand jury that indicted the Russian figure in November 2014 even though the informer was portrayed as “Victim One” in that indictment, the officials confirmed
When prosecutors finally interviewed Campbell more extensively in early 2015 and reviewed all of the records he had gathered for the FBI, they learned new information about the sequence of transactions he conducted while under the FBI’s supervision, as well as the extensive nature of his counterintelligence work for the U.S. government that went far beyond the Mikerin case and dated to at least 2006, the officials said. –The Hill
Uranium One approval
An extremely important aspect of Campbell’s timeline is that the Obama FBI, headed by Robert Mueller, knew of the bribery scheme with the transportation company before approving the Uranium One deal which would have utilized TLI for transporting the mined uranium.
“The Russians were compromising American contractors in the nuclear industry with kickbacks and extortion threats, all of which raised legitimate national security concerns. And none of that evidence got aired before the Obama administration made those decisions,” a person who worked on the case told The Hill, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution by U.S. or Russian officials.” –The Hill
Thus, the Uranium One deal clearly never should have been approved.
Campbell testified that the FBI thanked him for his undercover with a check for $51,000 in 2016 – which, according to a November report, was given to him at a 2016 celebration dinner in Chrystal City, VA according to Campbell’s attorney, (former Regan Justice Department Official and former Chief Counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee), Victoria Toensing.
“My FBI handlers praised my work,” testified Campbell. “They told me on various occasions that details from the undercover probe had been briefed directly to FBI top officials. On two occasions my handlers were particularly excited, claiming that my undercover work had been briefed to President Obama as part of his daily presidential briefing,” he testified
Following reports by John Solomon of The Hill and Sara Carter of Circa News revealing that Campbell had gathered evidence implicating the Clinton charity and the Obama administration, Michael Isikoffof Yahoo News wrote an article slamming Campbell – saying he would be a “disaster” as a witness because some of his claims could not be documented, an anonymous source told Isikoff.
And where have we heard Michael Isikoff’s name recently?
Another Yahoo News article written by Isikoff was used by the FBI as supporting evidence in a FISA warrant application by the FBI against one-time Trump campaign advisor Carter Page. Isikoff used information provided by former UK spy Christopher Steele – who assembled the infamous and unverified anti-Trump dossier which the FISA application was largely based on.
Isikoff says he was “stunned” to learn that his article was cited in the FISA warrant. We “believe” him.
Sessions and Rosenstein were running Interference
And in a move which can only be interpreted as an effort to protect the FBI, the Obama administration and the Clintons, AG Jeff Sessions and Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein even tried to suggest the nuclear bribery case uncovered by Campbell is not connected to the Uranium One deal.
“Attorney General Jeff Sessions in testimony last week and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in a letter to the Senate last month tried to suggest there was no connection between Uranium One and the nuclear bribery case. Their argument was that the criminal charges weren’t filed until 2014, while the Committee of Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) approval of the Uranium One sale occurred in October 2010.”
This rubbed several Congressional GOP the wrong way:
“Attorney General Sessions seemed to say that the bribery, racketeering and money laundering offenses involving Tenex’s Vadim Mikerin occurred after the approval of the Uranium One deal by the Obama administration. But we know that the FBI’s confidential informant was actively compiling incriminating evidence as far back as 2009,” Rep. Ron DeSantis, (R-Fla.) told The Hill, adding “It is hard to fathom how such a transaction could have been approved without the existence of the underlying corruption being disclosed”
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) sent a similar rebuke to Rosenstein, saying the deputy attorney general’s first response to the committee “largely missed the point” of the congressional investigations.
“Ask your politics”
When Campbell asked the FBI why all of the illegal schemes he uncovered weren’t being prosecuted, he was explicitly told it was political:
“I remember one response I got from an agent when I asked how it was possible CFIUS would approve the Uranium One sale when the FBI could prove Rosatom was engaged in criminal conduct. His answer: ‘Ask your politics,’ ” Campbell said.
Since his undercover work in Russia, Campbell has undergone 35 intensive radiation treatments after being diagnosed with brain cancer and leukemia.
Watch John Solomon and Sara Carter discuss the Campbell evidence last November:
A new Department of Justice probe of the email and charity fraud scandals won’t end well for Bill or Hillary
Until recently, the Clinton Foundation has been monitored by the IRS, the Department of Justice, and the FBI, and multiple state government authorities that are seeded with persons loyal to either the Clintons or the Obamas.
Every time, the Clinton Foundation got a free pass.
But now it appears key authorities may finally be turning strict attention toward answering tough questions about public filings of Clinton “charities” inside and outside the United States. When these powerful organizations engage motivated minds, they will wish to concentrate on a few areas that have long gone begging for attention.
The first time the Clinton Foundation was investigated, between 2001 and 2005, then-FBI Director Robert Mueller, then-Deputy Attorney General James Comey, and others could not seem to find obvious and escalating frauds as a supposed presidential library complex in Little Rock, Arkansas, also “fought HIV/AIDS internationally” from unregistered offices in New York and Massachusetts without ever obtaining required audits of worldwide activities.
Strangely, as the first investigation wound down, evidence in the public domain suggests that the Clinton Foundation also defrauded the National Archivist by making demonstrably false representations in a binding legal agreement.
For example, there is no evidence the IRS provided final approval to the Clinton Foundation to “fight HIV/AIDS internationally” as a tax-exempt purpose by Nov. 18, 2004, the date the presidential archive was officially donated.
That Nov. 18, 2004, agreement is nowhere to be found today on the Clinton Foundation website and in public filings despite the charity’s more than 13 years of widespread solicitation across state and national boundaries using telephones, mail, and the internet.
The next major investigation started in December 2009 when the French government launched a detailed look into UNITAID, a multilateral international organization — primarily funded by France — that has sent more than $650 million to arms of the Clinton Foundation engaged, at least in theory, in fighting HIV and AIDS.
Reports concerning this investigation, written in French and published in 2010 and 2011, show that French government authorities, like their U.S. counterparts, missed the heart of the problem posed by the Clinton Foundation.
The foundation, by its own description, started soliciting funding for its fight against HIV and AIDS early in 2002, though its authorized charitable status didn’t change until March 2004, after the Clinton Foundation HIV/AIDS Initiative Inc. was officially recognized on March 24, 2004, in Arkansas.
Applications made to the IRS, to various states and to foreign governments for tax exemption and solicitation rights to pursue this radically different mission, are not available on the central portal operated by the Clinton Foundation, nor forthcoming, yet, from the governments concerned.
Federal tax filings for this entity for the partial year in 2004 and for 2005 aren’t available on the Clinton Foundation website, perhaps because they show substantial activities that seem to fall far outside tax-exempt purposes approved by the IRS.
In addition, these and other tax filings fail to explain payments to members of the Clinton family for services received and for reimbursement of expenses by donors to the Clinton Foundation.
Even though there is no public record that the Clinton Foundation ever was authorized to control a supposed charity “fighting HIV/AIDS internationally,” the Clinton Foundation HIV/AIDS Initiative Inc. was supposedly liquidated as of Dec. 31, 2005, with all of its worldwide activities and obligations supposedly taken over by the parent foundation. There is no evidence in the public domain that the merger was lawfully completed in each U.S. state and foreign country in which either entity operated.
From 2006 through 2009, the Clinton Foundation solicited funds and received a majority of its growing revenues, in theory, to fight HIV and AIDS internationally. Required audits were not prepared to strict U.S. requirements.
Moreover, versions of these audits on the Clinton Foundation website exclude key “combining” statements that show for 2007 through 2009 just how substantial HIV- and AIDS-specific financial amounts are compared to the combined total. The Clinton Foundation attempted to reorganize in 2009, but available public filings could place multiple individuals in significant jeopardy.
For example, claims made to the IRS in applications for federal tax exemption on Form 1023, under penalties of perjury, are false and materially misleading concerning numerous entities created after Sept. 4, 2009, to carry on unauthorized activities in which the Clinton Foundation had been engaged starting in 2002.
To get to the heart of the vexing problems that allowed the largest unprosecuted charity frauds ever attempted to flourish from January 2001 forward, one must ask many questions of central figures in federal, state and foreign governments.
How did Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, while U.S. attorney in Maryland, miss the fact that the Clinton Foundation was promoting use of potentially adulterated HIV and AIDS drugs from October 2003 forward, even as he took until May 2013 to help win a $500 million set of penalties against the Indian manufacturer of the generic drugs?
Why was an African-American selected for prosecution during her re-election campaign in 2016 when Hillary Clinton was left unscathed despite the many years of questionable charitable activities by the Clinton Foundation?
How did Rosenstein miss obvious errors in the Clinton Foundation tax filings for 2010 (originally submitted in 2011 with amended versions submitted in 2015) concerning a $37.1 million donation to the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund at a P.O. Box address in Baltimore, Maryland, that was never declared, as required, in key states like New York?
Why did Rosenstein (and many other officials, including New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman), fail to require Laureate Education and the Clinton Foundation to explain how they organized the “Clinton Global Initiative University” and why the Clinton Foundation tax filings for 2010 through 2016 don’t explain what Bill Clinton did for the $17.6 million he was paid as part-time chancellor while he held key roles at the Clinton Foundation?
Former Congresswoman Corrine Brown, a Florida Democrat, reports to jail for a five-year term in federal prison following her conviction of being part of an $800,000 charity fraud. Why was this African-American selected for prosecution during her re-election campaign in 2016 when Hillary Clinton was left unscathed despite the many years of questionable charitable activities by the Clinton Foundation?
Former presidents in either the Democratic or Republican parties are not above the law. Now it’s up to President Donald Trump to make this fact abundantly clear.
Sometimes things can be made more complicated than they really are. And such is the case with the story that the Russian government hacked the Democratic National Committee so as to help Trump become president.
In July 2016 Wikileaks released a number of documents showing that the nomination of Hillary Clinton as the Democratic candidate for president had been rigged. A month earlier the DNC had announced it had been “hacked” and the cybersecurity company it hired announced that the Russians had done it – one of the reasons they gave was that the hackers had helpfully left the name of the Polish founder of the Soviet security forces as a clue.
Since then, this story has been broadly accepted and it has spun on and on for eighteen months. But it doesn’t really make any sense.
Let us pretend that Moscow wanted Trump to win. Let us further pretend that Moscow thought that there was a chance that he could win despite the fact that almost all news outlets, pollsters and pundits were completely confident that he could not. And let us pretend that Moscow thought that, with its thumb on the scale, Trump could make it. And, the fourth if, let us pretend that Moscow decided to put its thumb on the scale.
How to do it? Let us pretend (number five) that the strategy was to try and discredit Clinton. Let us further assume (this assumption is the one that’s probably true) that Moscow has very good electronic intelligence capacities. So, we imagine the scene in headquarters as they look for an approach; they quickly find one that is very good, a second that is pretty good and a third area that is worth digging around in.
The Russians would know all about the Uranium One matter where, as even the Clinton-friendly NYT admitted, “a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation“. It would be very easy for them to package this as a case of Secretary of State Clinton selling US policy for personal profit. Russian intelligence organisations would have a great deal of true information and would find it easy to manufacture material to fill in any gaps in the story. Presented as a case of corruption and near treason, the story could have done a great deal of damage to her. And, given that it had happened six years earlier, all the details would have been known and ready to be used. It would have been a very powerful attack that even the complaint media would have had difficulty ignoring.
We know, and it’s very likely that the Russians did too, that she ran a private e-mail server on which there were thousands and thousands of official communications. The server was very insecure and we can assume that Russia’s signals intelligence (and everyone else’s, for that matter) had penetrated it. Think of all the real material from that source that could be revealed or twisted to make a scandal. That would make quite a campaign. Further, it is a reasonable assumption that Russian intelligence would have some of the thousands of e-mails that were “bleached”. There would be enough material for a months-long campaign of leaks.
Finally, Hillary Clinton has been in public life for many years and there would have been ample opportunities, and, many would say, ample material in her scandal-plagued career, for the construction of many campaigns to weaken her appeal.
So, a preliminary look would suggest that there were several angles of attack of which Uranium One would be the easiest and most effective. But, failing that, or as a supplement to that, there was plenty of embarrassing and incriminating material in her illicit private server. Now we have to pretend (number six), contrary to the universal practice of security organs in all times and places, that the (always assumed in the story to be implacably hostile) Russians would decide to forgo the chance of compromising a future POTUS in favour of a harebrained scheme to get another elected.
But we’re supposed to believe that they did. The Russians, the story goes, with all this potential material, with a solid hit with Uranium One, decide instead to expose the finagling inside the Democratic Party structure. And to expose it too late to make any difference. As I said at the beginning, sometimes things are easier to understand when you, as it were, turn them upside down.
In the middle of June 2016 the DNC admits that its documents have been obtained – a “hack” they insist – and almost immediately, “Guccifer 2.0” pops up to claim responsibility and the DNC’s experts (Crowdstrike) claim Russia was behind it. A month passes before Wikileaks releases the first batch of DNC documents showing the extent of the manipulation of the process by Clinton – who had, according to most counts – already secured the nomination about two weeks before. A couple of days before the release, Trump gets the Republican nomination and a couple of days after that Clinton easily wins the Democratic nomination by a thousand-vote majority.
So, the first thing that should have occurred to the observer (but didn’t) was, if the Russians had had this incriminating evidence that the Democratic Party nomination had been fixed in Clinton’s favour, wouldn’t it have been more useful to put it out at a time when Sanders who was, after all, the swindled one, might have been able to do something about it? Instead those supposedly clever Russian state hackers dropped the news out at a time when it made very little difference. No difference in fact: Clinton got the nomination and there was no comeback from Sanders’ people.
So, the “Russian hackers” made their arrow, shot it, hit the target and… no one cared. The people who devoutly believe in the Russian hacking story now have to explain (but don’t) why the Russian state, apparently so determined to bring Clinton down, didn’t immediately hit her with the Uranium One documents and anything else they had that could feed the flames of scandal.
But, as we all know, they didn’t. While long rumoured, and even briefly reported on, we only learned of Uranium One in a big way in October 2017 and the fact that her server contained Special Access material (the very highest classified secrets) was confirmed authoritatively only in November 2017. If the Russian had really had this sort of information and the hostility to Clinton that we’re incessantly told that they had, two years earlier would have been the time.
So, on the one hand we are supposed to believe that the Russian government is so clever that it can hack anything, has innumerable social media trolls that influence elections and referendums around the world (“control the American mind“), drives a “fake news” campaign at a fraction of the cost but with far greater effectiveness than the massed legions of the Western media, is a threat to practically everything we hold sacred… but is too stupid to get it right. Possessing great and powerful secrets and a stunningly powerful machine to spread them, it chooses to fire a damp squib too late to make any difference and passes up the chance to have a compromised US president for it to control.
In other words, it’s nonsense: we don’t really need the forensics of VIPS; we don’t need to argue with people who say it’s fake news about Seth Rich, or that Assange is a Putinbot, or carefully ignore Murray. Those efforts are useful enough but they’re not necessary. In any case, the Russia story is a Gish gallop and a whole academy of wise men and women couldn’t keep up with the latest. (Robert Parry bravely attempts to list the most prominent ones from the Vermont power facility, through all 17 agencies to 14th not 4th.)
Just common sense will do it: if the Russians had wanted to bring Hillary Clinton down, they had far more powerful charges which they could have detonated much earlier. It is not plausible that all they had was the rigging evidence and that they then deployed it too late to have an effect.
Or, maybe they’re not so all-competent in which case all the other stuff we’ve had shoved down our throats for months about “Russian information warfare” is even bigger nonsense.
Fox News viewers are demanding the network fire resident liberal Shep Smith after the host embarrassed himself in a wildly inaccurate and poorly researched “fact check” of the Uranium One scandal on Tuesday, following reports that Attorney General Jeff Sessions was exploring a special counsel to investigate the sale of Canadian firm Uranium One to Kremlin-owned Russian energy giant Rosatom.
Did anyone watch Shep Smith , just explain how Hillary Clinton had nothing to do with Uranium deal?? What a joke Fox News!!! Send him to CNN
The nuclear deal, which ultimately resulted in the transfer of 20 percent of American Uranium to Russia so they could sell it back to US nuclear plants at an enormous profit, was approved by the Obama administration after significant donations in excess of $140 million were made to the Clinton Foundation by Uranium One affiliates.
UnlikeSean Hannity – Ol’ Shep clearly hadn’t done his homework – consistently mispronouncing the names of people involved in the case, telling viewers that Canada-based Uranium One is a South African company, and spewing inaccurate and misleading facts regarding the CFIUS (Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States) which approved the deal.
Shep’s selective timeline
While Smith claimed that the majority of donations to the Clinton Foundation were from Frank Giustra – a mining financier who sold his stake in Uranium One before it was acquired by Russia, and before Clinton was Secretary of State – he fails to mention the history between Giustra and the Clintons.
As Breitbartreports: “it is Smith who is being inaccurate. As noted in Clinton Cash and the New York Times, the Clintons helped Giustra acquire Kazakh uranium assets in 2005. Mukhtar Dzhakishev, then head of the Kazakh state nuclear agency, who met with the Clintons in Chappaqua, declared in 2010 that Hillary Clinton extorted and pressured Kazakh officials to grant those uranium concessions to Giustra. Shortly after they granted those concessions, $30 million was dropped into Clinton Foundation coffers by Giustra. Smith never mentions any of this.”
Smith also misled viewers over the fact that while while nine agencies which comprise the CFIUS, the decision to approve the Uranium One deal was ultimately Obama’s. This is incorrect, as any one of the nine agencies involved had the power to veto the deal.
Another key fact omitted by Smith was the timing of funds flowing to the Clintons – including the $500,000 speaking fee Bill Clinton was paid by a Russian bank which issued a “buy” rating to Uranium One during the CFIUS review process.
Smith, in his crappy debunking, declared that “no uranium from Uranium One’s US mines has left the country.”
Reports from both the New York Timesand The Hill reveal that yes – uranium left the US on multiple occasions. In fact, the Obama administration approved its export through a Uranium trucking firm based in Canada.
Shep fails to mention the FBI’s involvement
An October 17 article in The Hill reveals that Obama’s FBI, headed by Robert Mueller, discovered that “Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow”
No mention by Smith, of course.
The Hill also reported that an FBI mole embedded in the Russian nuclear industry gathered extensive evidence that Moscow had compromised an American uranium trucking firm in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act – a scheme of bribes and kickbacks to the company which would ostensibly transport the U.S. uranium sold in the ’20 percent’ deal.
“The Russians were compromising American contractors in the nuclear industry with kickbacks and extortion threats, all of which raised legitimate national security concerns. And none of that evidence got aired before the Obama administration made those decisions,” a person who worked on the case told The Hill, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution by U.S. or Russian officials. –The Hill
Smith also leaves out a new report that the FBI scrambled to issue records-retention requests to all 9 member agencies of the CFIUS weeks after they cracked into Hillary Clinton’s email investigation.
No mention of the Podesta Group
Shep also fails to mention that the Podesta Group received $180,000 to lobby for Uranium One during the same period that the Clinton Foundation was receiving millions from U1 interests, and after Russia took majority ownership in the “20 percent” deal (source – you have to add up the years).
Moreover, a former executive of the Podesta Group told Fox’s Tucker Carlson that Tony Podesta regularly met with the Clinton Foundation to coordinate the Uranium One deal, and was “basically part of the Clinton Foundation.” Moreover, the former exec claims that John Podesta – Clinton’s Campaign manager and long time DNC operative, recommended David Adams, Hillary Clinton’s chief adviser at the State Department, giving them a “direct liaison” between the group’s Russian clients and Hillary Clinton’s State Department.
Let’s review the timeline:
Between 2008 – 2010, parties involved with Uranium One donated $145 Million to the Clinton Foundation. You can read more about the parties here.
June 2009, Russian State Nuclear Agency Rosatom (through a subsidiary) takes a 17% stake in Uranium One.
June 2010, Rosatom takes majority (51%) ownership of Uranium One, granting the Kremlin control over 20 percent of U.S. uranium – which Hillary Clinton’s State Department signed off on. The FBI uncovers massive bribery scheme before CFIUS approves deal.
June 29th, 2010, Bill Clinton meets with Vladimir Putin at his home in Russia. Later that day Clinton earns $500,000 for a speech in Moscow to Kremlin-linked investment bank Renaissance Capital, which assigned a “buy” rating to Uranium One stock.
January 2013, Rosatom State Nuclear Agency acquires the remainder of Uranium one and takes it private.
Watch Shep Smith fumble the ball and cover for Hillary Clinton, horribly
Sitting down with Mother Jones, Hillary Clinton called any investigation into the Uranium One deal “an abuse of power” – of course.
If you enjoy the content at iBankCoin, please follow us on Twitter
As the mainstream media continues to obsess over $100,000 worth Facebook ads allegedly purchased by Russian spies in 2016 seeking to throw the presidential election, behind the scenes, far removed from the sight of CNN and MSNBC, the Uranium One scandal, in which the Obama administration approved a deal that handed a Russian-controlled corporation 20% of America’s uranium reserves despite the existence of an FBI investigation into ongoing illegal bribery, extortion and money laundering schemes, is slowly spiraling out of control…despite CNN’s continued ignorance of the topic.
By now we’re sure that most of our readers are well aware that Obama’s approval of the Uranium One deal seemingly landed the Clinton Foundation some $145 million in donations and a $500,000 speaking gig for former President Bill Clinton from a very thankful Russian bank…if not, here are a couple of recent posts on the topic as a recap:
That said, one thing that you probably don’t know yet, primarily because of the Obama administration’s proactive attempt conceal such information, is that despite repeated assurances from Congress and Obama’s Nuclear Regulatory Commission that U.S. uranium reserves wouldn’t leave U.S. shores, it, in fact, did.
As The Hill points out today, assurances that U.S. uranium would not be exported to foreign countries was a key sticking point when Congress reviewed the deal back in 2010. As such, repeated assurances were provided that such exports would never occur…here are just a couple of examples of those assurances:
“No uranium produced at either facility may be exported,” the NRC declared in a November 2010 press release that announced that ARMZ, a subsidiary of the Russian-owned Rosatom, had been approved to take ownership of the Uranium One mining firm and its American assets.
A year later, the nuclear regulator repeated the assurance in a letter to Sen. John Barrasso, a Wyoming Republican in whose state Uranium One operated mines.
“Neither Uranium One Inc. nor AMRZ holds a specific NRC export license. In order to export uranium from the United States, Uranium One Inc. or ARMZ would need to apply for an obtain a specific NRC license authorizing the exports of uranium for use in reactor fuel,” then-NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko wrote Barrasso.
The NRC never issued an export license to the Russian firm, a fact so engrained in the narrative of the Uranium One controversy that it showed up in The Washington Post’s official fact-checker site this week. “We have noted repeatedly that extracted uranium could not be exported by Russia without a license, which Rosatom does not have,” The Post reported on Monday, linking to the 2011 Barrasso letter.
That said, new memos obtained by The Hill now confirm that, in fact, Uranium One yellowcake did manage to escape U.S. shores repeatedly between 2012 – 2014.
Yet NRC memos reviewed by The Hill shows that it did approve the shipment of yellowcake uranium — the raw material used to make nuclear fuel and weapons — from the Russian-owned mines in the United States to Canada in 2012 through a third party. Later, the Obama administration approved some of that uranium going all the way to Europe, government documents show.
NRC officials said they could not disclose the total amount of uranium that Uranium One exported because the information is proprietary. They did, however, say that the shipments only lasted from 2012 to 2014 and that they are unaware of any exports since then.
NRC officials told The Hill that Uranium One exports flowed from Wyoming to Canada and on to Europe between 2012 through 2014, and the approval involved a process with multiple agencies.
Of course, given his repeated assurances to the contrary, Obama couldn’t simply allow Uranium One to ship uranium to the nearest port for export, so he instead signed a waiver allowing a Kentucky trucking company to carry the product across the Canadian border and then approved export from Canada to Europe.
Rather than give Rosatom a direct export license — which would have raised red flags inside a Congress already suspicious of the deal — the NRC in 2012 authorized an amendment to an existing export license for a Paducah, Ky.,-based trucking firm called RSB Logistics Services Inc. to simply add Uranium One to the list of clients whose uranium it could move to Canada.
The license, reviewed by The Hill, is dated March 16, 2012, and it increased the amount of uranium ore concentrate that RSB Logistics could ship to the Cameco Corp. plant in Ontario from 7,500,000 kilograms to 12,000,000 kilograms and added Uranium One to the “other parties to Export.”
The move escaped notice in Congress.
And while it will be dismissed by the Left as a convenient attempt for Republicans to change the “Russian collusion” narrative, Senator Chuck Grassley and others are finally starting to press for a special counsel to investigate what is clearly a scandal that is far more pervasive than anyone originally thought.
“The more that surfaces about this deal, the more questions it raises,” Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said in a statement released after this story was published. Grassley, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has launched an investigation into Uranium One.
“It now appears that despite pledges to the contrary, U.S. uranium made its way overseas as a part of the Uranium One deal,” Grassley said in the statement. “What’s more disturbing, those transactions were apparently made possible by various Obama Administration agencies while the Democrat-controlled Congress turned a blind eye.
“Americans deserve assurances that political influence was not a factor in all this. I’m increasingly convinced that a special counsel — someone with no prior involvement in any of these deals — should shine a light on this ordeal and get answers for the American people.”
So, is this what Obama meant when he told Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to let Putin know that he would “have more flexibility” after the 2012 election?
Exposed: Clinton Train Paid The Young Turks $20 Million
n this week’s episode of Newsbud’s Spiro Reports, Spiro investigates the deep state’s role in influencing the so-called alternative media. Recently the Young Turks secured an investment deal for $20 million. You know what they say, follow the money! Find out what we discovered in this hard hitting Newsbud community exclusive as we uncover the shady powerful network within the Clinton train who is pulling the money strings for the Young Turks. Plus, find out what former FBI whistleblower and Newsbud Founder Sibel Edmonds had to say about the Young Turk front man only at Newsbud.com
The KLA achieved victory with the help of United States and NATO bombers attacking Serbian forces.
At the time, President Bill Clinton portrayed the KLA as freedom fighters challenging Serbian strongman Slobodan Milosevic — a genocidal monster who died in a Hague prison cell in 2006. A few years ago, grateful Kosovars erected a bronze statue of Clinton in downtown Pristina, their capital.
But now, it turns out, members of the KLA were probably monsters, too.
“Our separatists are always good guys,” said Alan Kuperman, a public affairs professor at the University of Texas who has written about the moral hazards of intervening militarily for humanitarian purposes, speaking to VICE News. “Neither side was the good guy or the bad guy in this conflict in Kosovo. The way the story was portrayed in the 90s was always a caricature.”
The overlap with the US position on Russia’s involvement in Ukraine is troubling, said Kuperman.
“We condemn these separatists in Ukraine because they shot down a civilian plane,” he said. “They are evil, and Russia is bad for supporting them. But our separatists in Kosovo were trafficking in humans, in drugs, and allegedly in organ parts. But we’re not bad for supporting them. There’s a real double standard or hypocrisy.”
The Clinton Foundation invited the prime minister of Kosovo to the 2011 Clinton Global Initiative annual meeting knowing full well that he had been implicated in a human organ trafficking scheme as leader of the Kosovo Liberation Army in the late 1990s.
“What are USG views on WJC inviting former Kosovo PM [Hashim] Thaci and the current PM to CGI?” Clinton Foundation foreign policy adviser Amitabh Desai wrote in an Aug. 17, 2011 email to several top Hillary Clinton State Department officials.
“Is Thaci still embroiled in organ harvesting issues and is that of consequence?” Desai asked in the email, which the State Department recently released to Citizens United.
Desai clarified in a follow-up email that Thaci was actually prime minister at the time. He now serves as president of Kosovo.